Trump's sarcasm about Clinton's position on guns is portrayed as endangering her

NY Times:

Trump Suggests Clinton’s Security Detail Be Disarmed

The Republican nominee again raised the possibility of violence against his opponent, attacking her stance on gun control and adding that they should take away her bodyguards’ guns and “see what happens to her.”
Trump's point had nothing to do with raising the possibility of violence against Clinton.  He was just pointing out the hypocrisy of her position that would deny defensive weapons to ordinary Americans while she is protected by gun toting security personnel.   The media attempt to twist this into an endangerment story is another reason those selling news are losing credibility.

I am not a Trump supporter.  But those who oppose him should be honest about his positions and not distort them.  That merely gives his supporters less reason to listen to you when you raise valid criticisms.

For example, I think Trump is wrong on his trade positions.  NAFTA has been a net positive that has created jobs in Texas.  I disagree with his pander to the ethanol industry which should be forced to compete and not have a mandate for purchasing its lousy product.  I think Trump's flirtations with Putin are dangerous and delusional.

There are other things I disagree with him on.  I also disagree with Clinton's position on gun control among other things.  I would think that by now the media would learn to recognize his sarcasm for what it is and not treat it as seriously as this story appears to do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Another one of those Trump stories Ted Cruz warned about

Iraq says civilian casualties in Mosul caused by ISIS booby trap, not US air strike